Appeal from sexual assault conviction. W(D) case. Issue regarding sufficiency of trial judge’s reasons for rejecting the accused’s evidence.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

“A trial judge’s failure to explain why s/he rejected an accused’s plausible denial of the charges does not mean that the reasons are deficient, as long as the reasons demonstrate that where the complainant’s evidence and the accused’s evidence conflicted, the trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence … the Supreme Court of Canada has categorically rejected the proposition that an accused is entitled to independent reasons explaining why the accused was disbelieved; it is sufficient if the reasons made it clear that the acceptance of the complainant’s evidence reasonably and logically implied the rejection of the accused’s evidence.”

H. Jomha – Defence Counsel